25th Anniversary of the Inter Faith Network for the United Kingdom: The Inter Faith Network and Illegal Religious Discrimination in Treatment of Membership Applications

Below is the text of the statement presented to the Annual General Meeting of the Inter Faith Network for the United Kingdom (IFN) on 12 July 2012, as part of the application by the The Druid Network for membership of the Inter Faith Network.This website is established as part of raising the concern in accordance with the Equality Act 2010 that the Inter Faith Network has acted illegally and discriminated on grounds of religion contrary to law.

For sake of transparency this website is published completely independently from the Inter Faith Network in the public interest for the taxpaying public.The Inter Faith Network is over 80%-funded in hundreds of thousands of pounds every year by the taxes of British people.

The legal paper below can be downloaded in PDF format by clicking here (to download Adobe Reader please click here). Also, please download "Missing Documents for the Inter Faith Network Annual General Meeting", these being written Resolutions and expressions of concern by Member Bodies of the Inter Faith Network, which were sent to Dr Harriet Crabtree, IFN Director, but which documents were withheld by the IFN Director and Executive Committee, from the Annual General Meeting on 12 July 2012. To download this document, please click here.

The Legal Case Against the Inter Faith Network is Led by Top Human Rights Law Firm

The Inter Faith Network for the United Kingdom (IFN) has clearly broken the law by practising illegal religious discrimination. The case against the Inter Faith Network is led by Bindmans LLP, one of the foremost law firms in the UK and internationally, in this specialist area of public law. Bindmans has definitively and unequivocally determined that the actions of the IFN Director, Dr Harriet Crabtree, the IFN Co-Chairs and Executive Committee are illegal in treating “less favourably”, and discrimating against Druid and other Minority Religions on grounds of religion or belief, in clear breach of the law.

The Inter Faith Network Has Broken the Law and Practised Illegal Religious Discrimination

The Inter Faith Network is very likely to have broken the law by discriminating against particular communities on grounds of religion

The Equality Act 2010 and other human rights legislation prohibit organisations including Inter Faith Network from discriminating and treating a person or group of people less favourably because of their religion

The Inter Faith Network openly admits that it has discriminated on grounds of religion

However the Inter Faith Network has claimed that it can legally defend such discrimination as necessary “because of the purpose of the organisation”, namely that of “promoting religious harmony among the faith communities in Britain”

However, the law requires the Inter Faith Network to back up its claims with clear and compelling evidence that its actions of religious discrimination are justified as a necessary part of its purpose of “promoting religious harmony among the faith communities in Britain”

The burden of proof in law is at all times with the Inter Faith Network otherwise the Court must find against it

There is a large body of evidence which supports the assertion that not only is the IFN’s claim untrue that it is entitled and justified in need to discriminate “because of the purpose of the organisation”, but further that such discrimination actively damages good interfaith relations in Britain and promotes intolerance and religious prejudice against particular faiths

And thus the IFN’s actions are very likely to be unlawful as well as plainly morally wrong

First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

PASTOR MARTIN NIEMÖLLER

1 The Inter Faith Network is Prohibited from Unlawfully Discriminating Against Any Person or Group of People Because of their Religion

The Inter Faith Network for the United Kingdom (IFN) is very likely to have broken the law by discriminating against, and treating people of the Druid religion (a fully recognised and protected religion in English law) “less favourably” than people of the Baha’i, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Jain, Jewish, Sikh and Zoroastrian religions.

On 23 April 2012, Mr Philip Ryder submitted an application to join the Inter Faith Network on behalf of the registered charity, the Druid Network, which is protected in law as a faith community (Charity Registration Number: 1138265, and recognised as a religion under Section 2(3)(a) of the Charities Act 2006).

On 30 April 2012, Dr Harriet Crabtree, Director of the Inter Faith Network rejected this application in an e-mail in which she stated the following grounds of “religion and belief” as being the sole basis for her letter of refusal (the Druid Network had met all other membership requirements):

“The 2007 AGM of IFN resolved that the category of ‘national faith community body’ be open, at the present time, to organisations from the Baha’i, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jain, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Zoroastrian traditions. In view of this membership policy, IFN’s Executive Committee is not in a position to recommend acceptance of your application to the 2012 AGM”[1]

2 The Equality Act Makes it Unlawful to Discriminate because of Religion or Belief, and Further Places the Burden of Proof on the Inter Faith Network to Demonstrate that it is Not Discriminating

Under the Equality Act 2010 it is unlawful for an organisation to discriminate against a person or a group of people because of their “religion or belief”, race, gender, disability, age or other “protected characteristic” (except for strictly limited grounds which are treated below). The law states clearly:

“A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others”[2]

In law, the term “protected characteristic” covered by the Act includes “religion or belief”. The Druid religion is fully recognised as a religion and protected in English law under Section 2(3)(a) of the Charities Act 2006 and Section 10 of the Equality Act 2010:

“religion” includes—

(i) a religion which involves belief in more than one god, and(ii) a religion which does not involve belief in a god;[3]

“Religion means any religion and a reference to religion includes a reference to a lack of religion”[4]

The law places the burden of proof on the Inter Faith Network to demonstrate that it is not discriminating unlawfully against the Druid Network because of their “religion or belief”, otherwise the Court is required by law to find against the Inter Faith Network. The law states:

“If there are facts from which the court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that a person (A) contravened the provision concerned, the court must hold that the contravention occurred”.[5]

In this case, Dr Crabtree and the IFN Executive Committee have openly admitted that the reason for their rejection of the Druid Network’s application is on grounds of “religion or belief”.

3 It is Prohibited for Membership Associations Like the Inter Faith Network to Practice Unlawful Discrimination

The Act states clearly that it is unlawful for a membership association such as the Inter Faith Network to discriminate contrary to law against a person or group of people because of their “religion or belief”, or other “protected characteristic” (except for certain strictly limited grounds which are treated below):

“An association (A) must not discriminate against a person (B)—

(a) in the arrangements A makes for deciding who to admit to membership;
(b) as to the terms on which A is prepared to admit B to membership;
(c) by not accepting B's application for membership”.[6]

4 The Equality Act 2010 and Charities Like the Inter Faith Network

The Equality Act allows an “exception” for charities which have explicitly stated in their “charitable instrument” (ie. their charity governing document) that the beneficiaries of the charity are to be restricted to a particular class of people sharing a “protected characteristic” and who are demonstrated by evidence to be more disadvantaged in society than others.

An example of this would be a charity set up to benefit the restricted class of unemployed black women with disabilities who have been proven by independent research evidence to be more disadvantaged than other people in society. Such a restriction to a particular group defined by a “protected characteristic” would also have to be clearly stated in the organisation’s “charitable instrument”. However, reliance upon Subsection 2(b) can take place only “for the purpose of preventing or compensating for a disadvantage.”

In order to rely on this defence, the law would require clear evidence in Court from the Inter Faith Network that:

The Inter Faith Network’s “charitable instrument”, namely its Memorandum and Articles of Association, makes clear such a restriction, and further

That there is independent proof that Christians, Jews, etc who are currently accepted as member organisations by the Inter Faith Network are more disadvantaged in society than Druids, and so any restriction placed by the IFN aims to compensate for this social disadvantage faced by Christian, Jews, relative to the more privileged Druids.

It is rather unlikely that the IFN would be able to claim a “charities exception” on such grounds. The burden of proof is always on the Inter Faith Network to provide “weighty and convincing” evidence and justification, otherwise the Court must find against it.

As it happens, in any case, the Inter Faith Network Memorandum and Articles of Association do not restrict who can benefit from the charity, but on the contrary rather applies its benefit to all “the faith communities in Britain”:

“The Network is established to advance public knowledge and mutual understanding of the teachings, traditions and practices of the different faith communities in Britain including an awareness of their distinctive features and their common ground and to promote good relations between persons of different faiths”[7]

The other grounds for restriction, given under Subsection 2(a), which again must explicitly be justified and authorised in the “charitable instrument” of the Inter Faith Network is a fair, balanced and “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”. The law states:

“(1) A person does not contravene this Act only by restricting the provision of benefits to persons who share a protected characteristic if—

(a) the person acts in pursuance of a charitable instrument, and(b) the provision of the benefits is within subsection (2).

(2) The provision of benefits is within this subsection if it is—(a) a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, or(b) for the purpose of preventing or compensating for a disadvantage linked to the protected characteristic”.[8]

What this means in law is that a charity which, for example, has a clear objective such as the alleviation of poverty in developing countries, and which decides to targets poor female farmers in a fair, balanced and proportionate way (rather than farmers of both male and female gender) in pursuit of that wider objective, is able to do so by presenting “particularly weighty and convincing reasons” backed up by evidence, that by this approach, the families of those women – people of both male and female gender – are able to benefit from alleviation of hunger.

The Charity Commission is very clear indeed that charities which seek to rely on this “exception” must justify the restriction with “particularly weighty and convincing reasons” and demonstrate with evidence that “it is the only effective way of carrying out the aim” (in this case, promoting religious harmony among the faith communities in Britain). In addition, the law requires that “the trustees must be able to show they have considered if the aim [of promoting religious harmony among the faith communities in Britain] can be pursued by less discriminatory means and, if so, why these cannot be pursued instead.” The Charity Commission guidance states:

“Where the restriction [to a particular class of people sharing a common “protected characteristic” like “religion or belief”] is not justified on the basis of disadvantage or need (see Test A [namely, tackling social disadvantage]), this can only be justified by particularly weighty and convincing reasons. Charities seeking to use Test B [namely, a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim] will need to take advice about whether the discrimination they propose is in the category requiring a convincing and weighty justification”.

Is not justified by reference to funding consideration alone...For example a charity could not justify restricting benefits to a particular group as a means of obtaining funding from a source [such as a church or faith group] who will only provide it on a discriminatory basis

Is the only effective way of carrying out the aim [of promoting understanding of the teachings, traditions and practices of the different faith communities in Britain...and to promote good relations between persons of different faiths]. The trustees must be able to show that they have considered if the aim can be achieved by other less discriminatory means and, if so, why these cannot be pursued.[9]

5 Independent Evidence from Other Interfaith Organisations Refutes Any Legal Defence by the Inter Faith Network

The law at all times places the burden of proof in Court upon the Inter Faith Network to justify with evidence and “particularly weighty and convincing reasons” that the IFN’s exclusion of Druids from membership is “the only effective way of carrying out the aim [of promoting religious harmony among the faith communities in Britain]” and the aim cannot “be achieved by other less discriminatory means”.

In so doing, evidence would of course come from other national representative interfaith organisations (eg. in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) aiming to demonstrate that they too have been unable to deliver their charitable aim of “the promotion of religious harmony for the public benefit”, except by excluding Druids and equivalent Minority Religions (“New Religious Movements”) as “the only effective way of carrying out the aim”.

In their statement, Dr Crabtree and the Inter Faith Network Executive Committee have attempted to defend their legal position by claiming that if the Inter Faith Network were to grant equal membership to the Druid Network this would seriously damage the charity’s work to the extent that it would no longer be able to carry out its charitable aim of “promoting religious harmony among the faith communities in Britain”, and therefore the IFN’s exclusion of the Druid Network from membership is “the only effective way of carrying out the aim” and the aim cannot “be achieved by other less discriminatory means”. Dr Crabtree and the IFN Executive Committee claim the:

“Risk of the withdrawal of some of the major faith groups which have traditionally only been prepared to engage with a range of world faith traditions”[10]

Furthermore, Dr Crabtree and the IFN Executive Committee have attempted to rely on Schedule 23 of the Equality Act 2010 relating to exemption on doctrinal grounds for religious bodies:

“If an organisation, the purpose of which is to ‘foster or maintain good relations between persons of different religions or beliefs’, concludes that their work could be seriously affected by the acceptance into membership of a particular organisation (or individual)...a decision not accept that membership application would be consistent with the relevant provisions in Schedule 23 [of the Equality Act 2010]. An example of this might be a decision by an inter faith organisation not to accept a membership application from a particular faith organisation if the admission to membership of that organisation could have the effect of leading to representative bodies of major faith communities withdrawing from membership of that inter faith organisation.”[11]

In law, it is not of itself sufficient legal defence for Dr Crabtree and the IFN Executive Committee to assert “the risk of the withdrawal of some of the major faith groups”. What is required is that the Inter Faith Network must defend in Court backed up with independent evidence supporting “particularly weighty and convincing reasons” that its course of restriction, namely excluding the Druid Network from membership, is the “only effective way” of the IFN carrying out the charitable aim of promoting religious harmony among the faith communities in Britain – as a fair, balanced and “proportionate way” of achieving this legitimate aim, and that the aim cannot “be achieved by other less discriminatory means”.

And far from supporting any such legal defence by the IFN, the clear independent evidence from other successfully-operating national bodies for interfaith dialogue clearly refutes any such justification by the IFN for its exclusion of Druids:

A Interfaith Wales

Interfaith Wales (IW) is the highly successful national interfaith organisation which promotes religious harmony for the public benefit among the faith communities of Wales and clearly states that it is fully inclusive of Druidry as well as Paganism and other under-represented communities:

“Wales is pioneering inclusion for under-represented communities...They include eco-spiritualities, paganism, druidry...Paganism claims to be the indigenous polytheistic or pantheistic nature-worshipping religion of the British Isles. In the 2001 UK Census over 30,000 people identified themselves as Pagan”.[12]

Interfaith Wales also includes Baha’i, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Muslim and Sikh communities and there is no evidence to support the claim by the Inter Faith Network that inclusion of Druidry has led to such a national interfaith body being unable to discharge its charitable purposes of the promotion of religious harmony among the different faith communities in Wales – in fact, as IW goes on to state in regard to participation of the Christian churches in its work:

“There are representatives on the Interfaith Forum and Council for the Anglican Church, Roman Catholic Church, Free Churches, Churches Together (Cytûn) and the Evangelical Alliance”.[12]

B Scottish Inter Faith Council

The Scottish Inter Faith Council (SIFC) is the highly successful national interfaith organisation which promotes religious harmony for the public benefit among the faith communities in Scotland. It is fully inclusive of Brahma Kumaris which, like Druidry, is a Minority Religion (“New Religious Movement”) that has been excluded by the Inter Faith Network for the UK. As well as the Brahma Kumari community, the Scottish Inter Faith Council is supported by Christian churches of various denominations, alongside Baha’i, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh communities:

“The BKWSU [Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University] in Scotland have participated in Inter Faith activities since the days of the “International Flat” in Glasgow...The BKWSU were part of early consultation phase of the SIFC [Scottish Inter Faith Council] since 1998”.[13]

As with Interfaith Wales, there is no evidence to support the claim by the Inter Faith Network that inclusion of Minority Religions (“New Religious Movements”) has led to such a national interfaith body being unable to discharge its charitable purposes of the promotion of religious harmony among the different faith communities in Scotland.

C Northern Ireland Inter-Faith Forum

The Northern Ireland Inter-Faith Forum (NIIFF) is the highly successful national interfaith organisation which promotes religious harmony for the public benefit among the faith communities in Northern Ireland. The NIIF is fully inclusive of the Pagan religions, including Druidry, working alongside Christian churches and other faith communities. It states:

“The Northern Ireland Inter-Faith Forum (NIIFF) was formed in May 1993, following extensive discussions with members of the ethnic and religious communities in Northern Ireland...Membership currently stands at over a hundred drawn from many religious backgrounds: Jewish, Bahá'í, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan and Sikh, as well as Christians from different traditions”[14]

As with IW and the SIFC, there is no evidence to support the claim by the Inter Faith Network that inclusion of Pagans and Druids has led to such a national interfaith body being unable to discharge its charitable purposes of the promotion of religious harmony among the different faith communities Northern Ireland.

D Local Interfaith Groups in the United Kingdom

There are dozens of witness testimonies from local interfaith groups in the United Kingdom which are inclusive of Druidry and other Minority Religions (“New Religious Movements”) and have been able successfully to discharge their interfaith charitable objects, and which testify that far from “promoting religious harmony among the faith communities in Britain for the public benefit”, the effect of the Inter Faith Network membership policy nationally has been to increase religious disharmony and religious intolerance in Britain contrary to the public benefit toward Druid, Pagan and other lawfully-recognised and protected Minority Religions (“New Religious Movements”).

Dr Crabtree and the Inter Faith Network Executive Committee have not to date been able to provide an answer to the statement by the United Nations Human Rights Committee on this subject:

“The Committee therefore views with concern any tendency to discriminate against any religion or belief for any reason, including the fact that they are newly established, or represent religious minorities that may be the subject of hostility on the part of a predominant religious community”[15]

The IFN has also not to date been able to provide a response to the comment of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief:

There are a very large number of witness accounts of experiences of exclusion, prejudice and discrimination against Pagans, Druids and other Minority Religions (“New Religious Movements”) associated with their encounters with interfaith bodies which have cited as precedent the policy of the Inter Faith Network, which latter network produces various documents and guidelines for interfaith dialogue at local and national level. As one example, the Secretary of Leeds Concord Interfaith Fellowship cites correspondence to her from the Anglican Chair of Kirklees Faiths Forum:

“Unfortunately we are unable to add Pagan festivals to our E-News bulletin. Our Forum is a member of the National Interfaith Network which currently works with nine faiths which are: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Zorastrian [sic], Baha’i, Jain”.[17]

The Deputy Director of the Information Network Focus on New Religious Movements (INFORM) describes the IFN membership policy as “arbitrary”[18] and from her experience as academic researcher with Minority Religions (“New Religious Movements”) as creating a sense of injustice and injury among people of Pagan and equivalent faith communities as being the object of prejudice and intolerance.

E Conclusion

The above and other evidence overwhelmingly refutes any legal defence by the Inter Faith Network that exclusion of the Druid Network from membership is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” being “the only effective way of carrying out the aim [of promotion of religious harmony among the faith communities in Britain]” and that the aim cannot “be achieved by other less discriminatory means”. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that, on the contrary, the effect of the Inter Faith Network’s policy toward the Druid Network and equivalent Minority Religions (“New Religious Movements”) and related conduct by the IFN has been to advance religious disharmony, exclusion and prejudice toward those faith communities in Britain, contrary to the public benefit.

Paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 23 of the Equality Act 2010 permits those organisations covered by it to apply certain restrictions to membership and participation of individuals or groups of people on grounds of “religion or belief”. The law in this respect applies to defined categories of organisations which are listed in Sub-paragraph 1. The Inter Faith Network is most likely to be covered under Paragraph 2(1)(e) below:

“This paragraph applies to an organisation the purpose of which is—

(a) to practise a religion or belief,(b) to advance a religion or belief,(c) to teach the practice or principles of a religion or belief,(d) to enable persons of a religion or belief to receive any benefit, or to engage in any activity, within the framework of that religion or belief, or(e) to foster or maintain good relations between persons of different religions or beliefs”.[19]

These categories of organisation are permitted for certain strictly defined grounds only, to apply restrictions based on “religion or belief” in relation to granting membership, participation in activities or provision of goods and services. The law states:

“The organisation does not contravene Part 3, 4 or 7 [of the Act], so far as relating to religion or belief or sexual orientation, only by restricting—

(a) membership of the organisation;(b) participation in activities undertaken by the organisation or on its behalf or under its auspices;(c) the provision of goods, facilities or services in the course of activities undertaken by the organisation or on its behalf or under its auspices;(d) the use or disposal of premises owned or controlled by the organisation”.[20]

However, Sub-paragraph 6 of the Schedule states clearly that such an organisation may only impose such restrictions on membership, participation and provision of goods and services under Paragraph 2(3) for the strict and specific reasons of either “the purpose of the organisation” or “to avoid causing offence, on grounds of the religion or belief to which the organisation relates, to persons of that religion or belief”. The law states:

“Sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) permit a restriction relating to religion or belief only if it is imposed—

(a) because of the purpose of the organisation, or(b) to avoid causing offence, on grounds of the religion or belief to which the organisation relates, to persons of that religion or belief”.[21]

A Because of the Purpose of the Organisation

The Inter Faith Network has asserted grounds “because of the purpose of the organisation”, namely, the “promotion of religious harmony among the faith communities in Britain”, as basis for its exclusion of the Druid Network from membership under Schedule 23(6)(a) of the Equality Act 2010.

The “purpose of the organisation”, the Inter Faith Network, as aforesaid, is stated in its “charitable instrument”, being its Memorandum and Articles of Association:

“The Network is established to advance public knowledge and mutual understanding of the teachings, traditions and practices of the different faith communities in Britain including an awareness of their distinctive features and their common ground and to promote good relations between persons of different faiths”[22]

As aforesaid, Dr Crabtree and the IFN Executive Committee have claimed that:

“If an organisation, the purpose of which is to ‘foster or maintain good relations between persons of different religions or beliefs’, concludes that their work could be seriously affected by the acceptance into membership of a particular organisation (or individual) – regardless of the legal standing of that body and without judgement on its standing in other contexts – a decision not accept that membership application would be consistent with the relevant provisions in Schedule 23 [of the Equality Act 2010]. An example of this might be a decision by an inter faith organisation not to accept a membership application from a particular faith organisation if the admission to membership of that organisation could have the effect of leading to representative bodies of major faith communities withdrawing from membership of that inter faith organisation.”[23]

As discussed at length in the foregoing sections of this document, the burden of proof in law lies at all times with the Inter Faith Network to demonstrate justification for the restriction of excluding the Druid Network from membership as being consistent and necessary to the IFN’s purpose of promoting religious harmony for the public benefit among the faith communities in Britain. The IFN must back up its assertions with clear evidence in Court, which evidence relating to the functioning of equivalent national organisations working for the same charitable purpose of promoting religious harmony in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland has been detailed above in Section 5 of this document. As has been demonstrated, on the basis of this and other evidence, the Inter Faith Network is most unlikely to be able to justify such discrimination on grounds of “religion or belief” against the Druid Network.

B To Avoid Causing Offence, on Grounds of the Religion or Belief to Which the Organisation Relates, to Persons of that Religion or Belief

The Inter Faith Network has admitted that, on the face of it, the provision given in Schedule 23(6)(b) “to avoid causing offence, on [theological] grounds of religion or belief”, to followers of the religion to which an organisation relates appears to pertain to single faith organisations. Examples of this might be a Catholic adoption agency or a Muslim school which may desire to apply restrictions to membership, participation or provision of services based on “religion or belief” in order to avoid giving offence to followers of the Catholic or Islamic religions respectively. However, the Inter Faith Network has also asserted that:

“It would be likely, within the context of the Schedule to be held to apply by extension to the ‘religions’ or ‘beliefs’ represented within an inter faith organisation.”[24]

However, in all cases, for this provision to apply, the law requires the claim of the “religion or belief” for which “offence on grounds of religion or belief” would be caused by admission of the Druid Network, to be supported with evidence that such “offence” arises out of the prevailing and established doctrinal teaching of that religion or religions to which the organisation, the Inter Faith Network, relates. The burden of proof to demonstrate this lies with the organisation, the Inter Faith Network, seeking to apply the restriction.

In the case of a multi-religious organisation such as the Inter Faith Network seeking to exclude the Druid Network, it would need to be shown that it is the prevailing and established doctrinal or religious view of the nine faiths which are currently in membership of the IFN that granting membership to the Druid Network would “cause offence” arising out of theological and religious teachings pertaining to the nine traditions to which the Inter Faith Network relates. Therefore, it would need to be shown that, on this basis, exclusion of Druids is necessary “to avoid causing offence” of a doctrinal religious nature pertaining to these nine traditions to which the Inter Faith Network relates, to the followers of those nine religious traditions. In other words it would need to be demonstrated that the nine religions which are in current membership of the Inter Faith Network have an established and prevailing doctrinal teaching pertinent to this matter relating to the Druid Network’s admission to the extent that it is necessary to exclude in order “to avoid causing offence on grounds of religion or belief”.

Obviously, the mere decision by the IFN Executive Committee to exclude the Druid Network for political or pragmatic grounds clearly does not meet the legal requirement that the grounds for “offence” being given must be those of “religion or belief” – not interfaith politics.

In fact, the evidence demonstrates that there is just as strong a likelihood that the singling out and exclusion of the Druid Network from the Inter Faith Network “causes offence on grounds of religion or belief” to followers of some of the nine religious traditions, as its inclusion.

As one example, we attach a document by Islamic religious scholars indicating their opinion that it is offensive and contrary to established Islamic religious teaching and law to invent or manufacture the fictitious religious position for Muslims that the Druid Network is of any different status under traditional Islamic shari‘a to any of the other non-Abrahamic religions (eg. Baha’i, Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Sikh, Zoroastrian), and therefore that grant of membership to Druids in an interfaith organisation is any more or less “offensive” in the view of Islamic doctrine and theology than such membership being granted to these other religions. Rather, it is the singling out of the Druid religion for exclusion over against other religions which is “offensive”.[25] It is also to be noted that the IFN Executive Committee has no doctrinal or theological jurisdiction on matters of Islamic religious teaching.

The Inter Faith Network is thus unable to assert an established and prevailing theological agreement as a basis for any assertion that the admission to IFN membership of the Druid Network is likely to “cause offence on grounds of religion and belief” across the nine religions, since in various cases the reverse, namely exclusion of the Druid Network as a matter of policy, is equally likely to be cause of “offence on grounds of religion or belief”.

7 Conclusion

On the basis of clear evidence which Dr Harriet Crabtree and the Inter Faith Network Executive Committee appear to have failed to address, it is plain that the Inter Faith Network is very likely to be unable to defend its legal position in the face of the challenge that under the Equality Act 2010 and related legislation, it has acted unlawfully in its discrimination against the Druid Network.

Islamic Statement on the Matter of the Inter Faith Network for the United Kingdom

In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. All praise to Allah, Lord of Creation, and blessings and peace be upon His Messenger Muhammad and upon his family and companions. Hereon:

The Inter Faith Network for the United Kingdom (IFN) in the matter of the application for membership of the Druid Network has sought to assert exemption from the Equality Act 2010 under Schedule 23, Paragraph 2(6)(b) for religious bodies: “to avoid causing offence, on grounds of the religion or belief to which the organisation relates, to persons of that religion or belief”.

While this stated exemption is plainly intended to relate to organisations of a single “religion or belief”, the Inter Faith Network has asserted that “It would be likely, within the context of the Schedule to be held to apply by extension to the ‘religions’ or ‘beliefs’ represented within an inter faith organisation”.

Since independent expert religious and theological authorities of the Islamic faith would be among the IFN member faiths which would be required to agree in court with any joint interfaith assertion by the IFN on religious grounds that granting membership in the Inter Faith Network to the Druid Network is likely “to cause offence, on grounds of religion or belief” to “persons of that [Islamic] religious belief”, whereas granting membership to Baha’i, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jain, Jewish, Sikh or Zoroastrian bodies by contrast would not cause such “offence, on grounds of religion or belief” to Muslims, as Islamic religious ‘ulama we wish clearly to clarify the following:

There is no evidence anywhere in the Islamic shari‘a to support the assertion that granting membership in interfaith dialogue bodies to the Druid Network or engaging in interfaith dialogue with the Druid Network is any more or less “offensive on grounds of religion or belief” to the Islamic religion than granting such membership privileges to followers or organisations of the Baha’i, Buddhist, Hindu, Jain or Zoroastrian religions which are already in membership of the IFN.

The Holy Quran and Islamic shari‘a makes explicit mention only of Jews and Christians as having a particular status different from other religions in their proximity to Muslims by reason of their being People of Revealed Scripture. According to Islamic law, the Druid religion is no different in Islamic status to any of the other non-Abrahamic religions which are already represented in the Inter Faith Network, and there is thus no basis in Islamic religious teaching to assert that the inclusion of Druids would cause greater “offence, on grounds of religion and belief” to Muslims than any of these other non-Abrahamic religions.

It is however deeply offensive to the Islamic shari‘a that the teachings of any other religion(s) such as the policy documents or committees of an interfaith organisation which includes non-Muslims, or the policy documents of another religion or church should in any way be allowed to influence sovereign Islamic religious teaching or practice on inter-religious dialogue and the granting of inclusion or exclusion to particular people from other religions in different organisations. Islamic religious teaching and its body of ‘ulama are at all times wholly sovereign in all matters concerning Islamic teaching on interfaith engagement with non-Muslims and the status that non-Muslims hold under Islamic law. We will not under any circumstances allow any influence or interference by interfaith organisations or other churches or religions in such sovereign matters of Islamic religious teaching, jurisprudence or engagement with others.

[25] Islamic Statement on the Matter of the Inter Faith Network for the United Kingdom,

An Open Letter to the Baha'i, Jain and Zoroastrian Members of the Inter Faith Network Executive Committee and to the Baha'i, Jain and Zoroastrian Faith Communities in Britain

For the Attention of:

Dr Natubhai Shah, Vice President of the Inter Faith Network, President of the Jain Network
Hon. Barnabas Leith, Executive Committee of the Inter Faith Network (Baha'i)
Ms Jyoti Mehta, Executive Committee of the Inter Faith Network (Jain)
Mr Dorab Mistry, Executive Committee of the Inter Faith Network (Zoroastrian)
and all brothers and sisters from the Baha'i, Jain and Zoroastrian Communities of the United Kingdom

Below is the text of the statement to the Members of the Executive Committee of the Inter Faith Network as part of the application by the The Druid Network for membership of The Inter Faith Network for the United Kingdom, and for sake of transparency is published completely independently from the Inter Faith Network in the public interest for the taxpaying British public.

Open Letter to the Baha'i, Jain and Zoroastrian Members of the Inter Faith Network Executive Committee and the Baha'i, Jain and Zoroastrian Communities of the United Kingdom

On the occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the Inter Faith Network for the United Kingdom, we address this letter to you as Baha'i, Jain and Zoroastrian members of the Executive Committee of the Inter Faith Network, and we speak likewise to our brothers and sisters, ordinary women and men, from across the Baha'i, Jain and Zoroastrian faith communities in Britain.

We refer to the application made by our colleague, Mr Philip Ryder, Chair of the Druid Network on behalf of his organisation to Dr Harriet Crabtree, Director of the Inter Faith Network (IFN) for membership of the Network. Further to discussions and legal advice we have received we have strong grounds to believe that:

1) The grounds communicated by Dr Crabtree on 30 April 2012 to Mr Ryder in relation to the refusal by the IFN Executive Committee of the Druid Network's application for membership are clearly contrary to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Inter Faith Network - and are therefore null and void

2) The refusal by the Inter Faith Network as a registered charity to offer services and public benefit to members of the Druid community out of religious discrimination against that faith community may be unlawful

Refusal of Application for Membership of the Druid Network

On 23 April 2012, Mr Philip Ryder, the Chair of the Druid Network (Charity Registration Number: 1138265) which has been accepted for registration by the Charity Commission under charitable objects of Advancement of Religion for the public benefit and which is fully recognised and protected as a religion in English law, submitted a written application for membership of the Inter Faith Network to Dr Harriet Crabtree, Director of the Inter Faith Network. Section 2(3) of the Charities Act 2006 fully recognises in law the Druid religion of the registered charity, the Druid Network, and the Druid faith is protected under all human rights law and international human rights conventions against religious discrimination, to which the United Kingdom is signatory.

On 11 May 2012, following a meeting on 30 April 2012 of the Board of Trustees of the Inter Faith Network, Dr Crabtree wrote to Mr Ryder stating:

"The 2007 AGM of IFN resolved that the category of 'national faith community body' be open, at the present time, to organisations from the Baha'i, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jain, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Zoroastrian traditions. In view of this membership policy, IFN's Executive Committee is not in a position to recommend acceptance of your application to the 2012 AGM".

Constitution, Charitable Objects and Membership Rules Which Have Been Broken by the Inter Faith Network

The Inter Faith Network is governed by its constitution, the Memorandum and Articles of Association, which were incorporated on 2 October 1997, a copy of which are attached herewith. Its stated charitable objects of Promotion of Religious Harmony for the public benefit are given under Article 3 of the Memorandum, thus:

"The Network is established to advance public knowledge and mutual understanding of the teachings, traditions and practices of the different faith communities in Britain including an awareness both of their distinctive features and their common ground and to promote good relations between persons of different faiths"

The reference to "the different faith communities in Britain" clearly indicates and includes within its purview the legally recognised religion of the Druid Network. The membership rules of the IFN are given in Article 4 of the Articles of Association:

"Full membership shall be open to bodies which satisfy one or more of the following conditions:- (i) It is a national body representative in whole or in part of a faith community in Britain;..."

The application for membership of the Druid Network unambiguously meets these requirements. Furthermore, Article 102b of the Articles of Association states:

"...No Rule or Bye-Law shall be inconsistent with, or shall affect or repeal anything contained in, the Memorandum or Articles of Association of the Network".

The decision at the 2007 AGM to restrict membership of the Inter Faith Network in order to exclude a number of"the different faith communities in Britain" as stated in Article 3 of the IFN's own constitution, and obstruct the application for membership of organisations, including the Druid Network, which are unambiguously "a national body representative in whole or in part of a faith community in Britain" as stated in Article 4, is clearly inconsistent with, affects and repeals the explicit provisions of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Network - and is null and void.

Grounds for Refusal of Membership

While no grounds for refusal of membership have been given by the Inter Faith Network beyond the reference to the decision to restrict membership made at the Annual General Meeting of 2007, there is a widely known basis for this restriction and religious discrimination. This is expressed, for example, in the document of the Church of England, "The Church of England in Relation to New Religious Movements and Alternative Spiritualities" which expresses the view of that particular institution that the Druid community be excluded from formal interfaith organisations, including the Inter Faith Network which is 80% publicly funded from the taxes of all British people, including Druids. The minutes of the Inter Faith Network Annual General Meeting of 2000 contain reference to this prejudiced attitude in a session chaired by the then Co-Chair of the Inter Faith Network, Anglican Bishop Tom Butler:

"It was strongly urged that not all manifestations of religion are benign...and in paragraph c) Some believe strongly that it would be inappropriate to bring some groups such as Pagans into the Inter Faith Network on a representative basis as faith community bodies. There are concerns about how the Network would then be seen by others"

The registered charity, the Druid Network is a legally recognised national faith community representative body of one of the Pagan religions of Britain, and it is our strong belief that the grounds for exclusion of the charity are influenced in part by the expressed religious prejudice that its faith is not "benign" as recorded in the Inter Faith Network minutes above.

Such a prejudiced and totally unacceptable statement about a lawfully recognised and legally protected religious community such as the Druid Network, expressed within the formal context of the work of a charity like the Inter Faith Network whose explicit objects are the promotion of religious harmony for the public benefit, exposes statement and activity by the latter charity, the Inter Faith Network, which is vividly in breach of its stated charitable objects which are "to advance public knowledge and mutual understanding of the teachings, traditions and practices of the different faith communities in Britain including an awareness both of their distinctive features and their common ground and to promote good relations between persons of different faiths".

As a result of this recent exclusionary action by the Inter Faith Network Board of Trustees, a minimum of TEN existing member bodies of the Inter Faith Network, in accordance with Article 7.5 of the Articles of Association, have now DEMANDED that the application of the Druid Network be discussed and voted upon at the forthcoming Annual General Meeting on 12 July 2012. However, the Inter Faith Network Board of Trustees continues to maintain that the prior decision of the Annual General Meeting of 2007 applies, despite such restriction contradicting the Memorandum and Articles of Association as currently in force, and therefore being null and void.

We also have grounds to believe that the denial of services and benefit by the charity, the Inter Faith Network, to members of the Druid religion out of religious discrimination against that faith community is likely to be contrary to the Equalities Act and other relevant human rights legislation.

The Inter Faith Network is not founded upon a religious doctrine or belief, but rather clearly within its governing document exists to promote religious harmony among "the different faith communities in Britain", and any restriction by reason of religion is thus not in accordance with its stated charitable purposes nor is there are rational basis for the restriction which is linked to its written charitable purposes as given in Article 3 above. It cannot rely upon any charities exemption from such equalities and human rights law against discrimination on religious grounds, and moreover the Inter Faith Network continues to be up to 80% funded from the British taxpayer and thus indiscriminately takes money from British people of all faiths - including from Druid and Pagan communities whose applications to join the IFN it has rejected.

The Baha'i Faith

The Baha'i faith is classed by the Church of England's document "The Church of England in Relation to New Religious Movements and Alternative Spiritualities" as a "New Religious Movement" and is treated under the agency of the Church with responsibility for NRMs. In various contexts overseas, the Baha'i religion has been called a "cult", an "apostate sect", marginalised and its members brutally persecuted. This persecution has increased in recent years leading to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief to raise strong concerns about the exclusion and executions of members of that faith in Iran, and discrimination against Baha'is in other countries.

The Jain Faith

Followers of the ancient Jain religion likewise have been the subject of marginalisation and discrimination at various periods in the faith's history and in various countries. There have been concerns at legislation in some states such as in Gujarat which does not properly recognise the independence of the great world religion of Jainism, but rather sees it as a "sect" that is merely part of other religions.

The Zoroastrian Faith

Followers of the Zoroastrian religion have likewise historically been the subject of discrimination and persecution by others. In the current context, the discrimination and mistreatment of Zoroastrian minorities in various countries is a subject of strong concern by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief.

The Druid and Pagan Faith

There are numerically a greater number of followers of the Pagan religions in Britain than there are Baha'is, Jains or Zoroastrians. Nevertheless, faith-based representative bodies of the Druid and other Pagan religions are systematically excluded from membership of the Inter Faith Network for the United Kingdom. Just like the Baha'i, Jain and Zoroastrian communities, the Druid community and other Pagans have been discriminated against and excluded, labelled "sects" and "cults" despite such beliefs being historically older in these islands than Christianity. Clearly, given the full legal protection under English law of the Druid religion and of the registered charity, the Druid Network, under Section 2(3) of the Charities Act 2006, which recognises the Druid religious faith as protected by the law of the land, any attempts now by the Inter Faith Network Executive Committee to discriminate or deny Druidry's legitimacy and equality as a faith are unlawful.

The Inter Faith Network is up to 80% funded by public money and has received hundreds of thousands of pounds each year from public funds, including taxpayers' money from members of these faith communities, including the Druid community, whose membership applications it has blocked. It has now been found that throughout, the membership policy of the Inter Faith Network has been unconstitutional and contrary to its own Memorandum and Articles of Association. This discriminatory membership policy has been likened to that in apartheid South Africa, where "whites only" NGOs continued to take the taxpayers' money of black people whom they continued to block from joining.

We therefore address a clear request and appeal to the Baha'i, Jain and Zoroastrian communities in Britain to reflect on the illegality of the Inter Faith Network's conduct and think in moral and ethical terms about your own experiences of being discriminated against, persecuted and marginalised. We ask that you stand up as decent women and men of faith and of fairness in defending the rights of the Druid community, a lawfully recognised and protected religion under the law of this country - and oppose the Apartheid Membership Policy which the Inter Faith Network Executive Committee has applied against the Druid Network and various other religious communities - taking tax money from all faiths, but excluding some faiths.

On this 25th Anniversary of the Inter Faith Network, please take a stand for justice and fairness against prejudice and discrimination. Please vote in support of the Druid Network's application to the join the Inter Faith Network.

Thank-you for your email and the additional clarity contained therein. I fully understand that it would be inappropriate for you to offer a personal response on many of the points raised.

It appears from your reply that the only reason for rejection is that The Druid Network (TDN) is not recognised by IFN UK as a Faith Community Representative Body, despite your email recognising Druidry as a religion/faith, because of a membership policy introduced at the 2007 AGM.

In the spirit of open, honest and honourable communication I would like to raise a few points for consideration by the IFN Governing Body.

I have no legal training, but having spent 5 years holding talks with the Charity Commission Legal Department I am conversant with Charity Law - but certainly no expert.

I would like to suggest that the Committee looks again at the resolution passed at the 2007 AGM that, in my view, should be declared null and void. The Memorandum and Articles of Association that governs IFN UK prohibits in Article 102(b) the introduction of any Bye Law that is inconsistent with anything contained in the Memorandum and Articles of Association. Below I quote the Objects of IFN UK as given in the said document:

THE NETWORK IS ESTABLISHED TO ADVANCE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AND MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE TEACHINGS, TRADITIONS AND PRACTICES OF THE DIFFERENT FAITH COMMUNITIES IN BRITAIN INCLUDING AN AWARENESS BOTH OF THEIR DISTINCTIVE FEATURES AND THEIR COMMON GROUND AND TO PROMOTE GOOD RELATIONS BETWEEN PERSONS OF DIFFERENT FAITHS.

Restricting membership to a class of faiths, a protected category in law, is contrary to the stated Objects andtherefore the Bye Law is void (in my humble opinion). As a faith charity IFN could restrict their membership to a class - but it needs to be identifiable and justified. So, for example, it would be legitimate to have anAbrahamic Inter Faith organisation and restrict membershipto religions having those roots. It is clear though that IFN cannot restrict on grounds of numbers nor on grounds of antiquity - and certainly not because of worries about what others might think. I'm confident that the Committee are aware that it is the Memorandum and Articles of Association that governs IFN - the trustees job is simply to implement it and ensure that it is adhered to. Whilst members and trustees are free to introduce Bye Laws governing membership they can not do so if it negates public character or is contrary to the stated Objects and Aims. Not having access to the minutes of the 2007 AGM I am unaware of the reasons for the exclusion of other faiths, but I can think of no reason that would be justifiable given the stated Objects of IFN and the requirement for all charities to be of public character.

I would also suggest consideration be given to the requirement for Public Character given the policies that are blatantly discriminatory and contrary to the stated objects of the charity and to the head of charity under which IFN is registered. I quote below information on that Head as given by the Charity Commissions guidance.

The promotion of religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity includes a range of charitable activity directed towards actively promoting harmony and the lessening of conflict between people from differing races or religions or belief systems and eliminating discrimination and promoting diversity in society.

Examples of the sorts of charities and charitable purposes falling within this description include:

charities concerned with the promotion of human rights, at home or abroad, such as relieving victims of human rights abuse, raising awareness of human rights issues, securing the enforcement of human rights law;

charities concerned with the promotion of restorative justice and other forms of conflict resolution or reconciliation;

charities concerned with the resolution of national or international conflicts;

mediation charities;

charities promoting good relations between persons of different racial groups;

charities promoting equality and diversity by the elimination of discrimination on the grounds of age, sex or sexual orientation;

charities enabling people of one faith to understand the religious beliefs of others.

Could any reasonable person say, in all honesty, that the IFN comply with the above when there is in place an unjustified exclusion policy? The IFN policy on membership is discriminatory and prejudicial; it produces suspicion and misunderstanding by both those who are registered and those excluded. True Interfaith must surely include ALL recognised faiths to be effective.

Perhaps IFN is unaware of the effect this exclusion has. Many local IF groups use the policy as a means to exclude legitimate faiths. The lack of recognition by IFN enables the media to attack excluded faiths, regularly making them out to be not "proper religions". It also excludes these faiths from having a voice, for example on advice given by the IFN to Government and NGO's. There are many other examples and instances of intolerance and prejudice directed at druid/pagan faiths, IFN could help to remove this, instead it appears they turn their back, this I can not understand.

It is estimated that there are over 300,000 pagans in the UK and as given in my previous mail this would make them the 4th largest faith group, but still very much a minority faith, though certainly not a "New Religious Movement". There are faith groups within IFN that will easily relate to the prejudice and discrimination experienced by those who follow a minority faith. They have experienced it at the hands of majority faiths in countries outside of the UK, and perhaps even within the UK prior to IFN enabling them to be better understood. In particular the Zoroastrian, Baha'i and Jain faiths will understand what I am referring to. Other faiths have also been subjected to prejudice and discrimination, these too will have understanding of prejudice, misunderstanding and yes, even hate.

There is far more that connects us than divides, IFN UK has nothing to fear from admitting The Druid Network to membership, it can only add to its strength.

I have no desire to cause the reputation of IFN UK to be brought into disrepute, nor to negate the work that has been carried out by Inter Faith throughout the UK. But, neither can I allow the policy of exclusion to go unchallenged when it affects members of the Druid, Pagan and other recognised faiths. The exclusion policy can and is used by others to question the legitimacy of our faith.

If the Committee recommends that TDN is not admitted and/or the application is rejected at the AGM without good reason for that exclusion that is not discriminatory then they are, in my opinion, in breach of Statute and Charity Law.

Of course, I may be in error due to not being in possession of all the facts; the excluding policy was perhaps not put in place as a means of discriminatory exclusion, though evidence given in published documents seems to support my conclusion. If indeed this is the case then I would be more than pleased to be informed of the reasons given when the resolution was allowed by the Committee to be introduced to the 2007 AGM. However, this would not negate any of the points I have raised above regarding governance of IFN UK given my current understanding of the Charities Act 2011 together with the Charity Commissions published guidance on Public Benefit and the Equality Act.2010.

Your email of 14 May refers to the position on the application by the Druid Network for membership of the Inter Faith Network for the UK (IFN).

My email to you of 11 May said that IFN’s Executive Committee is not in a position to recommend to the 2012 IFN AGM acceptance of this application. The charitable status of the Druid Network and its recognised status as a religion are not in doubt. The Executive Committee reached its position on the application on the basis of the present criteria for IFN membership by organisations in the category of membership for faith community representative bodies, which were, as noted in my email, agreed at the 2007 AGM of IFN. This AGM resolved that the category of ‘national faith community body’ be open, at the present time, to organisations from the Baha’i, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jain, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Zoroastrian traditions.

Policies relating to criteria are additional to the provisions in IFN’s Memorandum and Articles of Association and are always a matter for AGM decision. If adopted they are binding until such time as a future AGM (under the current processes of IFN) may revoke or otherwise amend them. So it is not within the ability of the Trustees to operate other than as determined by the AGM. But please rest assured that the AGM will be invited to discuss this application and the recommendation which the Executive Committee will make to the AGM on this.

Your email also referred to the membership application which has been received from the Christian/Muslim Council. As Dr Al-Hussaini of the Christian/Muslim Council was informed in my email to him of 11 May, the Executive Committee has so far taken no decision on the recommendations it should make to the forthcoming AGM on applications for IFN membership which it has received from bodies which are eligible for membership under current membership criteria (of which that body was not the only one). The recommendations to be made on these applications, and on others still coming in, will be decided at the meeting of the Executive Committee on 14 June.

Your email also dealt with a range of other matters. Recent correspondence on the issues covered in it will be made available to the Executive Committee at its meeting on 14 June. They will no doubt consider then what response should be made to the other points made in your and other emails and how to handle these at the forthcoming AGM. It would clearly not be appropriate for me to respond to these points ahead of its discussion. But I have responded on the specific matter of the application process as it is clearly important that there should be no misunderstanding about the position which has been reached, which I have described in this email, on the two membership applications dealt with in your email.

I am copying this email to those in your cc list and also to the additional address in Dr Al-Hussaini’s email of earlier today which had your email of 14 May below it.

The information contained in this email, and in any attached files, may be confidential and/or privileged and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by return email and delete this message. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited.

While the Inter Faith Network for the UK takes care to protect its systems from virus attacks and other harmful events, the company gives no warranty that this message (including attachments) is free of any virus or other harmful matter, and accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage resulting from the recipient receiving, opening or using it.

Thank-you for your e-mail of 11th May 2012 in reply to our application dated 23rd April for membership of the Inter Faith Network for the UK given on behalf of the Druid Network.

I would have liked to thank the IFN Executive Committee for considering our application however it is obvious from your reply that I am unable to do that as our application has been blocked by the IFNExecutive Committee as being in their judgement “ineligible” for admission as a “Faith Community Representative Body”. This has been done despite the fact that the Druid Network is fully recognised in law under Section 2(3) of the Charities Act 2006 as a fully protected religion, and the charity (Registered Number: 1138265) is registered by the Charity Commission for England and Wales under charitable objects of the Advancement of Religion for the public benefit.

Notwithstanding any varying and discriminatory decisions around IFN membership policy which arbitrarily exclude Minority Faiths, and that may have been taken from time to time by the IFNExecutive and at AGMs, the fundamental Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Inter Faith Network nowhere state that that the Druid community nor any other legally-recognised religion in this country is to be ineligible for membership. Therefore:

· *** At the present time I am able to notify you that under Clause 7.5 of the Memorandum and Articles of the Inter Faith Network, a minimum of ten existing member bodies of the Inter Faith Network have now demanded a vote on our application at the forthcoming Annual General Meeting of the IFN on Thursday 12 July, and have likewise resolved that our application be deemed eligible over and against the position of the IFN Executive Committee. I look forward therefore to our application being heard at the AGM and its eligibility being voted upon by members present.

· *** I am further able to notify you that in the case of our friends, the Christian Muslim Council, who in the course of their application for Inter Faith Network membership initially raised these pointed questions around religious discrimination in IFN membership policies and taxpayer funding of the IFN, and as a result of their doing so now find that their otherwise eligible application appears now to be “held over” as “pending” by the IFN Executive, under Clause 7.5 of the Memorandum and Articles, a minimum of ten existing IFN member bodies have now demanded a vote on the CMC’s admission to membership at the same AGM.

We will duly be filing these ballots in writing from our supporting IFN member organisations to the Annual General Meeting of 12 July 2012.

My colleague from the Christian Muslim Council, in his e-mail to you of 21st April, asked the IFNExecutive Committee some important questions to which no reply has yet been given. As a matter of courtesy and transparency, I and my colleagues should therefore appreciate a response from the IFNExecutive to the following questions:

1. 1. The IFN represents itself as “The Inter Faith Network for the United Kingdom” and is fundedin excess of 80% by the British taxpayer. The published accounts for the year ending 2010 showreceipts of public money by the IFN of £325479. These include tax money the IFN has received from all lawfully-recognised faith communities who have previously applied for but have been rejected from membership of the IFN, including the Druid community, Pagans and others. My colleagues and I should appreciate a clear statement from you and the IFN Executive Committee as people of faith and ethics as to how the Inter Faith Network continues morally to justify its taking public money – including tax receipts from our and other applicant faith communities it has rejected from membership – while still continuing to apply an apartheid-style exclusion policy similar to a “whites only” membership policy which nonetheless at the same time continues to take the tax money of blacks? I cite the statement made concerning this IFN financial and membership policy given by my colleague as, “theft and discrimination by the Inter Faith Network similar to my South African apartheid experience of ‘whites-only’ NGOs taking public money out of the taxes of black people – taxation without representation”.

2. 2. My colleagues await your and the IFN Executive Committee’s prompt response to the above question, and likewise to the question from my friend concerning the admission to IFN membership of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation against the strong feelings among the ordinary British public about that organisation, and what kind of comment that makes about the extent to which the IFN Executive is in touch with, and has “consulted and engaged” with grassroots public sentiment in this country?

I further add a two additional questions of my own based on your statement in your e-mail to me of 11th May that the “IFN resolved that the category of 'national faith community body' be open, at the present time, to organisations from the Baha'i, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jain, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Zoroastrian traditions”. Given that the Pagan faith community in this country exceeds in number of adherents certain of religions listed above (please see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom), this IFN list of included faiths has clearly not been constructed on the basis of numbers.

In addition, the Baha’i faith is a religion that is historically newer in foundation than a number of faith groups which are deemed “ineligible” New Religious Movements by the IFN Executive, and there thus appears to be an arbitrary and discriminatory basis for “who is in and who is out”. The only significant document that appears to correlate surprisingly closely with the IFN policy of discrimination is the document, The Church of England in relation to New Religious Movements and AlternativeSpiritualities which actively discourages formal interfaith dialogue with members of certain Minority Religious communities. My colleagues and I should appreciate your response to the following questions:

3. 3. In the light of my notes above, since it is clearly not based on number of UK adherents nor antiquity of a faith, what is the basis and criteria for the IFN’s list of “eligible” faith communities versus “ineligible” faith communities for membership “who is in and who is out”, and what is the relationship between the CofE’s position paper and the policy of the IFN on this?

4. 4. What comment does the IFN have to make on its membership policies in relation to the two United Nations Human Rights and Special Rapporteur comments cited by my colleague in his message to you – Paragraph 2 of UN Human Rights Committee General Comment 22 in respect of religious discrimination by state Established churches and state religions against Minority Religions, “The Committee therefore views with concern any tendency to discriminate against any religion or belief for any reason, including the fact that they are newly established, or represent religious minorities that may be the subject of hostility on the part of a predominant religious community". The Special Rapporteur notes in his Interim Recommendations relation to discrimination in state-funded interfaith dialogue projects like the Inter Faith Network, “Examples of problematic side effects are...the exclusion of marginalised religious or belief communities from [state supported and funded interreligious] dialogue projects”.

To be open I am appalled at the prejudice and discrimination that appears to be practised within the governance of IFN. However, we do have the support willingly given of friends in IFN member bodies, and this gives us the option to ask for a vote at the upcoming AGM and this restores my faith in interfaith.

Druidry teaches us to interact with respect and honesty, our ethics being founded on forming sacred, honourable relationship with all forms of life. And so I would ask that the committee reconsiders its decision. I am not asking that TDN is recommended for membership, but simply asking that the member groups of IFN are the ones who make the decision, not the privileged few of the IFNExecutive Committee. I understand that we would still need 75% of the vote to gain acceptance, but personally I would like to see the results of that poll and so better judge the true spirit of the IFN.

I have a duty as a trustee of The Druid Network to its membership. Many of our members are excluded from local interfaith simply because the local groups follow the advice of the IFN and the CofE's advice on NRM's. I am not prepared to allow this prejudice and discrimination to continue. The IFN committee may consider that they do not have to abide by legislation that prohibits discrimination against individuals because IFN does not have individual membership and it states that it has no authority over the operation of local groups, despite many of them followingIFN's recommendations. There is though the question of ethical principles. If IFN was a closed members organisation that self funded then I would have no problem with it being a closed group of the worthy few. But that is not the case. IFN is majority publicly funded and a registered charity - this imposes on the IFN governing body a duty of trust and a legal requirement to operate within its objects which are, “to advance public knowledge and mutual understanding of the teachings, traditions and practices of the different faith communities in Britain...” which correctly is to be understood as all the different faith communities in this country, as are properly recognised in law by statutory bodies including the Charity Commission – as is the Druid Network.

Within Druidry we hold both truth and justice to be paramount and I thought other faiths also held to these basic principles, yet the published objects of IFN UK hold no truth and the exclusivity demonstrated could not in any reasonable persons view be considered either fair or just.

I will be open in saying that I will use all mediums at my disposal to ensure this discrimination is stopped. You say in your reply that IFN is to have a strategic review and imply that we should await the outcome of that review.

Sorry, but my colleagues have expressed deep objection that while the IFN’s discrimination against the Druid and other communities is postponed to “review” for future outcomes, the IFN continues now – right now – to take thousands of pounds taxation money including revenue receipts of faith community representative bodies like mine whom it excludes from membership. This is plainly unethical, dishonest, and my friends of many faiths can see the glaring lack of religious morals in such behaviour. I would also state that I consider this to be simply a delaying tactic and I quote from the 2000 National Meeting held on the 4th July 2000 to support this conclusion. In the concluding plenary session chaired by Bishop Tom Butler it states in paragraph a) It was strongly urged that not all manifestations of religion are benign....... and in paragraph c) Some believe strongly that it would be inappropriate to bring some groups such as Pagans into the Inter Faith Network on a representative basis as faith community bodies. There are concerns about how the Network would then be seen by others.

It seems clear from the above that we are considered to be one of the religions that are malignant and that including us would be inappropriate, also that the IFN are more concerned about how they would be seen by others than in taking the correct ethical action. Only by talking to us can these prejudices and misunderstandings be resolved by all concerned.

Prejudice and discrimination need to be stopped now. That you feel it should even be discussed as to whether we are worthy of acceptance is beyond the understanding of many of my colleagues of different faiths, and is a source of dismay and anger to them in this, the Jubilee Celebration year of the Inter Faith Network.

Dear Mr Ryder,
Thank you for your email of 24 April with its application for membership of the Inter Faith Network for the UK by the Druid Network.
The 2007 AGM of IFN resolved that the category of 'national faith community body' be open, at the present time, to organisations from the Baha'i, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jain, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Zoroastrian traditions. In view of this membership policy, IFN's Executive Committee is not in a position to recommend acceptance of your application to the 2012 AGM.
There have been changes in the inter faith landscape of the UK and at its meeting last Autumn IFN'sExecutive Committee decided that the time had come for a Strategic Review. In further discussion of this at its meeting last week, it agreed that the Review should begin in the early Autumn this year. The Review will provide the opportunity for consideration of a range of issues such as IFN's continuing relevance and usefulness; strategic priorities; patterns of membership; and resources. When the Review gets underway, any reflections that the Druid Network have to offer will be very welcome.
If you would like to have a phone conversation about the position which I have described on the application or about the Review, I will be pleased to do so. My number is below. Or I can ring you if you prefer.
Best wishes, Harriet Crabtree

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this email, and in any attached files, may be confidential and/or privileged and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by return email and delete this message. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited.

While the Inter Faith Network for the UK takes care to protect its systems from virus attacks and other harmful events, the company gives no warranty that this message (including attachments) is free of any virus or other harmful matter, and accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage resulting from the recipient receiving, opening or using it.